Will FERC ruling strangle New Jersey’s clean-energy plans?

A ruling by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that state subsidies of nuclear and renewable energy are ‘unjust and unreasonable’ could unravel a range of NJ energy initiatives

Tom Johnson reports for NJ Spotlight:

With two new laws this spring promoting nuclear and clean energy the Murphy administration moved aggressively to combat climate change, but a decision by a federal agency may end up thwarting those policies.

The action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission this past June could have huge implications for how much customers pay for electricity to power their homes and businesses, and undermine state policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In New Jersey, the state Board of Public Utilities last week asked FERC to reconsider the decision, a step also requested by the operator of the nation’s largest power grid, some of the biggest energy companies in the nation, as well as a coalition of the most prominent environmental organizations.
The long-running dispute revolves around what power suppliers are paid for providing extra capacity in reserve to supply electricity to the grid when energy demand peaks. State policies that provide incentives to nuclear plants and renewable energy are depressing those prices, according to some suppliers. The result has led to the early retirement of both coal and nuclear power plants.

‘Unjust and unreasonable’

In its decision, FERC ruled that a current tariff that sets prices for power suppliers within the PJM Interconnection — which serves the nation’s largest electricity market with 65 million people — is “unjust and unreasonable.’’ In essence, the agency sided with Calpine, the owner of a fleet of natural-gas plants, which argued that state subsidies to nuclear and renewables artificially drive down prices.
For New Jersey, the order by FERC could unravel long-standing legislative initiatives to promote cleaner sources of energy like solar power, as well as the state’s proposed subsidies to keep nuclear power a part of its energy mix by having ratepayers subsidize plants it deems uneconomic.

Read the full story

Like this? Click to receive free updates

Will FERC ruling strangle New Jersey’s clean-energy plans? Read More »

Renewable energy in Minnesota receives a battery boost

Mike Hughlett reports for the Star Tribune:

Renewable energy in Minnesota is about to take a potentially big step forward.

Connexus Energy is building two electricity “storage” systems — solar-panel arrays connected to big batteries. Each battery can store up to two hours of power, allowing Connexus to inject renewable energy into the grid on command.
“It’s a big endeavor, especially since it is new and first of its kind,” said Greg Ridderbusch, CEO of Ramsey-based Connexus, the state’s largest cooperatively owned electricity provider. “It’s not research and development. This is a commercial project.”
The $31 million undertaking marks the first commercial-battery deployment in Minnesota and the largest by an electric co-op in the country. Falling battery prices have made “solar-plus-storage” a viable alternative for Connexus.
The improving economics of storage, combined with regulatory mandates in some states, has prompted a surge in battery projects nationwide. Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy has plans for one of the country’s largest energy-storage initiatives in Colorado.
Xcel’s battery efforts in Minnesota have been limited, though it may unveil bigger plans next year.
Batteries address gaps in power

The improving economics of storage, combined with regulatory mandates in some states, has prompted a surge in battery projects nationwide. Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy has plans for one of the country’s largest energy-storage initiatives in Colorado.

“The holy grail for renewable energy is to have storage you can dispatch at any time,” said Ellen Anderson, executive director of the University of Minnesota’s Energy Transmission Lab.
Ramsey-based Connexus — which serves 130,000 customers in portions of seven counties, particularly Anoka and Sherburne — began looking at energy storage in 2016. At first, batteries didn’t pencil out.
But Connexus devised a plan that would work, saving the co-op around $4 million in annual power-supply costs.
“This is a cost-efficient project for them,” Anderson said. “They will save customers money because they will reduce peak demand.”

Read the full story

Renewable energy in Minnesota receives a battery boost Read More »

CBS Sunday Morning report: Drowning in a sea of plastic

Piece by piece, an environmental threat is piling up, and we’re ALL to blame. Worse yet, even those of us trying to bring an end to the problem may not be doing as much good as we think. David Pogue reports our Cover Story:

In the 1950s, a new material burst onto the scene that would change the world forever. Cheap, durable, sanitary, strong, and light.
And today, there are literally thousands of raw categories of plastic, according to Fred Betke, founder of Delta Pacific Products, which makes plastic parts for medical instruments.
The technical name is polypropylene, and all almost everything plastic starts out as pellets. They’re available in every color under the sun. 
Delta Pacific’s clients specify the exact design of the parts they want. Hot plastic gets injected into heavy steel molds.

plastic-pellets-to-molded-plastic-parts-620.jpg

From pellets to molded plastic parts.
  CBS NEWS
After 65 years of making plastic, we’ve pretty much mastered the art. What we haven’t yet figured out is what to do with plastic once we’re done with it.
“It lasts a really long time,” said Roland Geyer, professor of environmental science at UC Santa Barbara. “It doesn’t biodegrade. So, it just sits there.”
Geyer has studied how much plastic we throw away. “We have statistics reaching all the way back to the dawn of plastic mass production, 1950. And if we add it all together, it’s 8.3 billion metric tons. So, if we take that and spread it out evenly over California, the entire state of California would be covered. And that would be an ugly sight.”

plastic-landfill-620.jpg

  CBS NEWS
About 70 percent of our discarded plastic winds up in open dumps or landfills.
“So, a plastic bag probably used once between the cash register and the car, and then how long will it be here in the landfill?” asked Pogue.
“It will be with us for hundreds of years,” Geyer said.

plastic-non-biodegradable-refuse-at-landfill-roland-geyer-david-pogue-620.jpg

Environmental science professor Roland Geyer and correspondent David Pogue at a landfill, with a piece of plastic that isn’t biodegrading any time soon.
  CBS NEWS
But some plastic winds up in an even worse place: The ocean. “Every single year, somewhere between 5 and 12 million metric tons of plastic waste enters the ocean,” Geyer said. “Plastic in the ocean has a tendency to break down into other smaller pieces. And these tiny pieces then get taken up even lower down in the food chain. So, we know that it ends up on our dinner plates.”
“Wait a minute – there’s plastic in my food?” asked Pogue.
“There is plastic in your food. Plastic in your sea salt. And there is plastic coming out of your tap.”
In fact, at this rate, the World Economic Forum predicts that by 2050, our oceans will contain more plastic than fish.

floating-trash-island-off-honduras-b-620.jpg

A floating island of plastic waste off the coast of Honduras. Because plastics do not biodegrade, much of our waste that is not recycled ends up in landfills or the ocean.
  CBS NEWS
But wait a minute: Don’t most people recycle plastic? Not exactly. Geyer says that as of 2017, the world recycles only about 9 percent of all our plastic.
Even if you’re good about using your recycling bin, your plastic may never actually get recycled. Its first stop is a material recovery facility, where metal, glass, paper and plastic get sorted. 

plastic-sorting-plastic-trash-at-recycling-center-620.jpg

Sorting plastic at GDB International in New Brunswick, N.J.
  CBS NEWS

We sort everything,” said Sunil Bagaria, the co-founder of GDB International, a corporate recycling facility in New Jersey. His staff sorts the plastic by type and then wraps it into huge bales.  “We will sort hangers. We will sort plastic film. We will sort soda bottles, pill bottles, and make individual bales of each plastic.

“Then it is going to another factory, which is then washing it, grinding, pelletizing it. Then from there it will go to another company which will make another product or maybe blowing another bottle.”
It’s easy and economical to recycle clean, pure plastic. But well over half of the plastic we throw in our bins is contaminated by food, paper labels, or other materials.
For 30 years, we’ve had an easy solution for disposing of that dirty plastic: Send it to China. “China was buying 50% of all graded plastic scrap in the world,” Bagaria said. “Now, that continued for, say, 20, 30 years.  And then there was I think a movie made by somebody, ‘Plastic China.'”
The 2017 documentary “Plastic China” illustrated the brutal truth about the contaminated plastic that developed nations were selling to China. It showed a desperately poor Chinese family eking out a living by hand-sorting these mountains of plastic trash.
“So the Chinese government, the Communist Party is waking up and saying, ‘Why are we doing this?'” Bagaria said.
“There’s some national pride – ‘We don’t wanna be the world’s dumping grounds’?” asked Pogue.
“Yes, there is national pride.”
So, the Chinese government announced a new policy. Staring on January 1 of this year, China stopped accepting other countries’ plastic unless it is impossibly pure. “If you are sending any scrap it should not have more than 0.5% of foreign matter,” Bagaria said.
“So it’s gotta be 99.5% pure?” said Pogue.
“Pure plastic. And that was obviously unattainable.”

plastic-piles-of-plastic-waste-gdb-international-sunil-bagaria-david-pogue-620.jpg

David Pogue with GDB International’s Sunil Bagaria.
  CBS NEWS









In his plant, Bagaria showed Pogue why. A lot of plastic come to recyclers like Bagaria all mixed together, impossible to separate cost effectively.
So, what happens now to the plastic we used to ship to China? Nothing. It’s just piling up.

CBS Sunday Morning report: Drowning in a sea of plastic Read More »

Scorching summer in Europe signals long-term changes

People trying to cool down in the Trocadero Fountain in front of the Eiffel Tower in Paris.Credit

Alissa J. Rubin reports for the New York Times:
PARIS — In Northern Europe, this summer feels like a modern-day version of the biblical plagues. Cows are dying of thirst in Switzerland, fires are gobbling up timber in Sweden, the majestic Dachstein glacier is melting in Austria.
In London, stores are running out of fans and air-conditioners. In Greenland, an iceberg may break off a piece so large that it could trigger a tsunami that destroys settlements on shore. Last week, Sweden’s highest peak, Kebnekaise mountain, no longer was in first place after its glacier tip melted.
Southern Europe is even hotter. Temperatures in Spain and Portugal are expected to reach 105-110 degrees Fahrenheit this weekend. On Saturday, several places in Portugal experienced record highs, and over the past week, two people have died in Spain from the high temperatures, and a third in Portugal.
But in the northernmost latitudes, where the climate is warming faster than the global average, temperatures have been the most extreme, according to a study by researchers at Oxford University and the World Weather Attribution network.


By analyzing data from seven weather stations in northern Europe,
the researchers found that the closer a community is to the Arctic
Circle, the more this summer’s heat stood out in the temperature
record. A number of cities and towns in Norway, Sweden and Finland hit all-time highs this summer, with towns as far north as
the Arctic Circle recording nearly 90-degree temperatures.

Image

A crowded beach in Nazaré, Portugal, on Thursday. The Portuguese Institute of the Sea and Atmosphere warned that the maximum temperatures will be well above normal.CreditPaulo Cunha/EPA, via ShutterstockNot only is much of northern and western Europe hotter than normal, but the weather is also more erratic. Torrential rains and violent thunderstorms have alternated with droughts in parts of France. In the Netherlands, a drought — rather than the rising seas — is hurting its system of dikes because there is not enough fresh water countering the seawater.

Scorching summer in Europe signals long-term changes Read More »

How to lose the climate fight one MPG at a time

The Trump administration’s proposed freezing of tailpipe regulations would reverse one of the most effective climate actions on the books. 
The Trump administration's proposal to freeze automotive efficiency standards at 2020 levels would effectively abandon the decades-long push to cut carbon emissions from this sector.

The Trump administration’s proposal to freeze automotive efficiency standards would effectively abandon the decades-long push to cut carbon emissions from this sector, among the most climate-polluting. Credit: David Paul Morris/Getty Images
The Trump administration’s plan to halt the drive for more efficient U.S. passenger vehicles will downshift the nation’s ambitions on climate change at the same time that it triggers an epic battle with California, the leader on clean cars.The administration is casting its proposal, issued on Aug. 2, as neutral on climate and even beneficial from a safety standpoint.But the costs will be enormous, according to those who favor stricter regulations. It’s not just that consumers will have to pay the price at the pump, they say—everyone will have to pay for the health and ecological costs of air pollution and global warming. Every new gas-guzzler sold will lock in some of those costs for years to come.The rule would freeze emissions and efficiency standards at 2020 levels, or the equivalent of 43.7 miles per gallon for passenger cars and 31.3 mpg for SUVs and other light trucks. That would end the steady improvement toward 54 mpg, a goal that the lame duck Obama administration called technically feasible, effective and beneficial to the public. The proposal is certain to be challenged in a public comment period and in court.

The Climate Change Imperatives

In the United States, transportation has surpassed electric power as the most important driver of emissions. The science dictates that net global emissions from energy must decline to zero in the next few decades to avoid the worst risks of climate change.That simply can’t happen in the United States without rapid cuts in tailpipe emissions.

The Trump administration suggests its move would cause U.S. fuel consumption to increase by about 500,000 barrels of oil per day, an amount many experts consider to be an underestimate. The proposal argues the CO2 impact “perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, is relatively small.”   Additional emissions would be just a drop in the global bucket, according to the rule, less than one part per billion of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But in making that estimate, the Trump administration reveals an ominous finding.By the end of this century, it expects the accumulation of CO2 to reach concentrations of nearly 790 parts per billion, nearly doubling what’s there today—and enough to blast far past the goals of the Paris climate treaty.The New York-based research firm Rhodium Group projects that the impact of the auto standards freeze will begin slowly but build substantially over time. By 2025, the increase in annual emissions will range from 16 million to 37 million metric tons, ballooning to 32 million to 114 million metric tons by 2035. At the high end—the expected track if oil prices stay relatively low—that’s equivalent to adding another state the size of New Jersey to the U.S. emissions mix.Dave Cooke, senior vehicles analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, calculates that by 2040, the Trump freeze would add a total 2.2 billion metric tons of global warming emissions to the atmosphere. (Total annual U.S. carbon emissions are currently about 5 billion metric tons.)

How to lose the climate fight one MPG at a time Read More »

N.J. sought more money to protect voting machines from hackers. Republicans in Congress said no.

N.J. Attorney General Gurbir Grewal.
N.J. Attorney General Gurbir Grewal


Jonathan D. Salant reports for NJ.com 

WASHINGTON — New Jersey’s voting machines are among the nation’s most vulnerable to hacking, and state officials asked Congress for more money to protect their equipment.

Republicans who run the show in Washington said no.

Both the House and Senate declined to allocate millions of dollars in grants to states when they passed spending bills funding the Election Assistance Commission for the 12-month period beginning Oct. 1.

“This is going to be an ongoing need and election officials are going to need a regular stream of funds to combat the threats and defend their systems,” said David Becker, executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a Washington research group.


How secure are N.J.'s voting machines?

The debate over helping states guard against voter hacking came as top officials in President Donald Trump‘s administration warned that Russian attempts to interfere with U.S. elections didn’t end in 2016.
“In regards to Russian involvement in the midterm elections, we continue to see a pervasive messaging campaign by Russia to try to weaken and divide the United States,” National Intelligence Director Dan Coats said at the daily White House press briefing. “We also know the Russians tried to hack into and steal information from candidates and government officials alike.”
State Attorney General Gurbir Grewal sought more federal help.
“I strongly believe that the federal government should be doing more, not less, to ensure our democratic institutions are free from foreign intrusion, and I’m disappointed that Congress disagrees,” he said.
Grewal and 20 other state attorneys general had written to key congressional Republicans last month, urging them to approve a new round of state grants.
“The existing Election Assistance Commission grants are simply insufficient to provide for the upgraded technology needed,” the attorneys general wrote. “More funding is essential to adequately equip states with the financial resources we need to safeguard our democracy and protect the data of voting members in our states.”

N.J. sought more money to protect voting machines from hackers. Republicans in Congress said no. Read More »